SOCIALISM IN THEORY
Morris Hillquit, a ring-leader among Socialists of the United States,
writing in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 487, informs us that the
term Socialism is used indiscriminately to designate a certain
philosophy, a scheme of social organization and an active political
movement.
Socialism, used to designate a certain philosophy, may better be
distinguished by being called Socialism in theory. Socialism as an
applied scheme of social organization may be termed Socialism in
practice, and means nothing other than a form of government according to
the principles of Socialist philosophy. Socialism, as an active
political movement, means the Socialist Party. Thus, when we say that
Socialism won several times in Milwaukee, we do not mean that the system
of Socialist philosophy was voted upon and accepted by the majority, for
most of the voters knew practically nothing about the philosophy of
Socialism; nor do we mean that the form of government in accordance with
the principles of Socialist philosophy was adopted at the polls, for, as
a matter of fact, we know that the government of Milwaukee has never
been in accordance with the Marxian principles; but we mean this, and
only this, that the active political movement of the Socialists, in
other words, the Socialist Party, elected its candidates. No doubt the
victorious candidates would have ruled Milwaukee according to the
philosophy of Socialism, applying the Marxian principles to their
government, if they could have done so, but the Constitution of the
United States as well as that of the State of Wisconsin would have stood
in the way, as will be seen when Socialism is explained more in detail.
The first form of Socialism to be explained in detail is Socialism in
theory. There seem to be about 57 hundred times 57 hundred varieties of
Socialists, owing to the conflicting views that members of the party
hold on different subjects which they wish to include in Socialism, and
also because of their different interpretations of the fundamental
principle of Socialism. There is, however, one underlying principle that
seems to be held quite generally by Marxians the world over. No matter
what other radical measures individual Socialists may favor or wish to
see included in the Socialist philosophy, and no matter how many
different interpretations are given to the principle of Socialism, the
basic principle that stands out above all others and is accepted
generally by Socialists the world over may be said to be the demand for
a government, democratic in form, under which all the citizens would
collectively own and manage the principal means of production,
transportation and communication.
The Industrial Workers of the World form one of the few classes of
Socialists who object to the generally accepted fundamental principle
just mentioned. "The One Big Union Monthly," March, 1919, prefers to
drop the words "democratic form of government," because the I. W. W.'s
are not sure that ownership by the people as a whole would succeed
better under a democratic form of government than under a dictatorship
of the proletariat.
"The Labour Leader," the organ of the Socialist Independent Labor Party,
Manchester, England, February 6, 1919, declares that Socialism is "the
complete ownership and control of the means of life by the people, and
the development of industry and the distribution of its fruits under a
genuine and absolute democracy." In explaining Socialism, it says that
"it means that the land shall become the property of the people, not of
private individuals. It means that the great industries shall become the
property of the people. It means that the railways and the canals shall
become the property of the people. It means that the shipping shall
become the property of the people. In short it means that everything
essential to the life of all shall become the property of all, and shall
be administered not for the profit of the few, but for the use of all.
And it demands intelligent control of public affairs by the people,
women as well as men."
Practically the same ideas are expressed in other words by Jaurés in
"Studies in Socialism," page 32 of 1906 edition, translated by Minturn.
This great leader of the French Socialists, who was assassinated at the
beginning of the World War, and in whose honor there was a tremendous
demonstration in Paris on April 6, 1919, prophesied that "the time is
not far off when no one will be able to speak to the public about the
preservation of private property without covering himself with ridicule
and putting himself voluntarily into an inferior rank. That which
reigns to-day under the name of private property is really class
property, and those who wish for the establishment of democracy in the
economic as well as the political world should give their best effort to
the abolition and not to the maintenance of this class property."
In "The Revolutionary Age," Boston, January 11, 1919, page 4, we read:
"What is Socialism? It is the public ownership of all the wealth,
the mills, the mines, the factories, the railroads and land. Things
that are used in common, must be owned in common, by the people and
for the people under democratic management by the people, instead
of the present system of private ownership for profits."
According to Morris Hillquit in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 487:
"The Socialist program advocates a reorganization of the existing
industrial system on the basis of collective or national ownership
of the social tools. It demands that the control of the machinery
of wealth creation be taken from the individual capitalists and
placed in the hands of the nation, to be organized and operated for
the benefit of the whole people."
Hillquit, in his various articles, has, of course, like many other
Socialists, given his explanation of the detailed method of organization
and operation of industries under a Socialist form of government. It
reads very nicely and appears attractive, as his statements do till
truth's searchlight falls on them, but it does not seem worth while to
present his views, for very many of the leading Socialists of the world
not only differ with each other as regards the method of organization
and operation that they advocate for the Marxian state, but they are
also very much at variance with the plan of organization and operation
that Hillquit describes.
Eugene V. Debs, in his "Daily Message from Moundsville Prison,"
published in "The Call," New York, April 21, 1919, tells us what
Socialism is:
"The earth for all the people! That is the demand.
"The machinery of production and distribution for all the people!
That is the demand.
"The collective ownership and control of industry and its
democratic management in the interest of all the people! That is
the demand.
"The elimination of rent, interest and profit and the production of
wealth to satisfy the wants of all the people! That is the demand.
"Co-operative industry in which we all shall work together in
harmony as the basis of a new social order, a higher civilization,
a real republic! That is the demand.
"The end of class struggles and class rule, of master and slave, of
ignorance and vice, of poverty and shame, of cruelty and crime--the
birth of freedom, the dawn of brotherhood, the beginning of MAN!
That is the demand.
"This is Socialism!"
In the Preamble to the American Socialist Party Platform, adopted by
national referendum, July 24, 1917, we are told:
"The theory of a democratic government is the greatest good to the
greatest number. The working class far out-numbers the capitalist
class. Here is the natural advantage of the working class. By
uniting solidly in a political party of its own, it can capture the
government and all its powers and use them in its own interests.
"The Socialist Party aims to abolish this class war with all its
evils and to substitute for capitalism a new order of co-operation,
wherein the workers shall own and control all the economic factors
of life. It calls upon all workers to unite, to strike as they vote
and to vote as they strike, all against the master class.
"Only through this combination of our powers can we establish the
co-operative commonwealth, wherein the workers shall own their jobs
and receive the full social value of their product. The necessities
of life will then be produced, not for the profits of the few, but
for the comfort and happiness of all who labor. Instead of
privately owned industries with masters and slaves, there will be
the common ownership of the means of life, and all the
opportunities and resources of the world will be equal and free to
all."
The fundamental principle of Socialism, namely, a government, democratic
in form, in which all the citizens would collectively own and manage the
principal means of production, transportation and communication, will be
more clearly understood if the several component parts of the basic
principle are explained.
A government, _democratic in form_, would, of course, require the
overthrow of all limited monarchies as well as the annihilation of those
that are despotic. Even a republican form of government, like that of
the United States, is very far from being satisfactory to the
Revolutionists, for they demand that the citizens have as direct a voice
as possible, first in the election of all public officers, secondly in
the framing of the laws, and thirdly in the management of the many
industrial departments of the proposed government.
By the citizens' _collective owning_ of the different things enumerated
is meant that they would own them just as the citizens of the United
States, as a body, to-day own the post-offices, arsenals, navy and
public lands. Of course, collective ownership does not imply that, after
the state should have taken over the things referred to, each citizen
would be entitled to an equal share of them as his own private property,
to be used by him according to his desires.
_The management of the property_ of the Socialist state and the
remuneration[8] for labor would not be in the hands of private
individuals acting independently, but would be subject to the will of
the majority of the citizens.
By the _principal_ means of production, transportation and communication
is meant any instrument of production, transportation or communication
that would be used for purposes of exploitation, in other words, for
making profit through the employment of hired labor. To illustrate this,
several examples will be given. Mines, factories and mills of all kinds,
large business houses and stores, together with those farms whose owners
would employ hired labor for the production of goods to be sold at
profit, would all be looked upon as being among the _principal means of
production_. On the other hand, a sewing-machine used for family needs
would not be included in the list.
There are many Socialists who have held that their intended state would
allow the private ownership of very small farms, provided that the
products were raised without the employment of farm hands. But it seems
likely that such a plan of private ownership would not be tolerated
under a Socialist government, for, first of all, a very large number of
Socialists are opposed to such a plan, and, secondly, the political
actionists who have favored it either have sacrificed thereby the
principles of their party, or else by advocating the private ownership
of small farms, have done so with the intention of deceiving farmers and
small land owners in order to win their votes. More will be said about
this further on.
Railroads, street car lines, express and steamship service would be
among the _principal means of transportation_; while included in the
list of _principal means of communication_ there would be the public
telephone and telegraph systems. Automobiles, horses and carriages, if
used without the assistance of hired labor, would not be considered as
being principal means of transportation. So, too, under similar
conditions, a private telephone or telegraph line running to the house
of a friend would be excluded from the principal means of communication.
The state would, of course, own all the goods produced in its mines,
factories, shops, etc., until they were purchased with money or labor
certificates. The people would then retain these goods as their own
private property, and would not, according to the leading American
Socialists, be compelled to divide them up with their fellow countrymen.
The Socialist plan looks very nice on paper, allures many impoverished
workingmen of the present day, appeals strongly to the uneducated, and
offers great inducements to the "downs and outs" of society. It is,
however, a deadly poison, and this will be proven conclusively in the
chapter on "Socialism a Peril to Workingmen." There it will be shown not
only that a Socialist state cannot possibly be a success, but that it
would be a source of continued civil strife and discord, thoroughly
unsatisfactory to workingmen, whom it would overwhelm with all the evils
attendant on crime, strife, rebellion and chaos. In the Marxian state
the industrial establishments, land, and business enterprises would be
confiscated; neither interest, rent nor profit would be tolerated; the
wage system would be abolished; no satisfactory plan could be devised
for assigning so many millions of workingmen to the different positions,
while at the same time satisfying them with remuneration for their daily
toil; religions of all kinds would be the object of persecution;
free-love would be legalized; and political corruption would be much
more widespread than today. These are but several of the factors that
would make a successful Socialist state an impossibility.
It may interest the reader to know that Socialists of the highest
authority inform us that in the new state women would be called upon to
work. The late August Bebel, one of the foremost of German Socialists,
says that as soon as society is in possession of all the means of
production, "the duty to work, on the part of all able to work, without
distinction of sex, becomes the organic law of socialized society."
["Woman Under Socialism," by Bebel, page 275 of the 1904 edition in
English.] Frederick Engels, in his book, "Origin of the Family," teaches
that the emancipation of women is primarily dependent on the
reintroduction of the whole female sex into the public industries.
["Origin of the Family," by Engels, page 90 of Untermann's 1907
translation into English.] In "The Call," New York, February 27, 1910,
it is stated that "the man who professes himself to be a Socialist, and
then says that under Socialism men will provide for women, is wide of
the mark."
Keeping clearly before their minds the fundamental principle of
Socialism, the people of America must be careful to distinguish between
Socialists ruling under our present form of government, and Socialists
ruling in a Socialist state. Possible success in the first case would by
no means indicate success in the latter. If our citizens are cautious in
this respect, the enemies of our country will not dare to boast of the
so-called success of Socialism in those places in which the members of
their party, elected to public office, may have given a good
administration under our constitutional system of government.
Though Socialism, in the strictest sense of the word, is concerned
exclusively with economics, still this does not mean that those who
profess it do not advocate, as part of their program, many pet projects
not appertaining to economics. By a vast majority, the members of the
Socialist Party either advocate atheism and opposition to religion, or
at least do not oppose those Socialists who do. Most of them, too, in
their cravings for what is base and low, are by no means adverse to
seeing free-love reign supreme in their contemplated state. The word
_Socialism_ is, therefore, frequently used in a broader sense, and is
made to include not only the common doctrine advocating the democratic
form of government under which the citizens would collectively own and
manage the principal means of production, transportation and
communication, but also those other doctrines that are taught or
silently approved by the majority. It is in this broader sense, then,
that the opponents of the Marxians justly claim that Socialism is
atheistic, anti-religious, and immoral.
We are told by Hillquit in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 486, that
"like all social theories and practical mass movements, Socialism
produces certain divergent schools, bastard offshoots clustering around
the main trunk of the tree, large in number and variety, but
insignificant in size and strength. Thus we hear of State Socialism,
Socialism of the Chair, Christian Socialism and even Catholic
Socialism."
Persons who call themselves Socialists may be divided into two classes,
in the first of which are those who are Socialists merely in name, for
they go no further than to vote the party ticket. It is in the second
class that we find the real Socialists, men who besides severing all
connections with the other political organizations and voting regularly
for the Socialist candidates, have taken out membership cards which
entitle them to vote on party policies by the payment of several dollars
a year into the treasury of the party. Many of the first class are, of
course, not guilty of propagating atheism, free-love, and other radical
doctrines. In fact, it often happens that they scarcely know that such
things are taught by Socialists, for the deceitful Revolutionary orators
and writers, having blinded them with vivid pictures of their
misfortunes, lead them to believe that the movement is morally upright,
and that the contemplated state of the future will bring them every
blessing under Heaven.
But unless those who are Socialists merely in name sever their
connection with the party of Karl Marx, it will not be long before many
of them will lose all sense of honor, decency and morality. Indeed they
often sink lower than the base character who composed the "poem" that
takes up half a page of "The Call" of May 10, 1914. Though "The Call"
seems to consider the "poem" an excellent specimen of literature, or
else uses the large type that it does in order to attract the attention
of its readers to the sublime virtues of the author, the quotation of
but a small part of the production will suffice to bring out its real
worth and at the same time show us the benign effects of Socialist
teachings:
"You who are exalted by pictures but not by people: you who
worship a book and a god rather than hearts and men and
women:
I'd rather have my world and its flesh and its devil than your
heaven and its spirit and its god:....
And while I don't blame man for being base or praise man for
being noble, I embrace man as my brother for being man:
And there you have the whole story, my man intoxication: I am
drunk with man: you see how it is:
You can have your bibles: I don't need your christs: your
creeds would be an insult to me: I have man: I am drunk
with man:
That's the secret of secrets: that's the confession of confessions:
that's the inside of the inside of me:
I don't expect you to take it in: drunk with man: no: that's
too much like mockery to you: you shudder at it:
To you man always comes last: man never comes first: gods,
mountains, laws--they come first: man can take his
chances:
That's the rule of precedence as you have fixed it: that's the up
and down and around of your cosmos:
But I say no: I who am drunk with man can't give up my faith
for your blasphemy: you who are sober with god."
The attention of the reader must now be drawn to something of vital
importance. There is no doubt that "Knights of the Red Flag" have
advocated many excellent social reforms, such as higher wages, shorter
working hours and greater safety for laborers, legislation against
trusts, and the prevention of child labor and political corruption.
Great credit would they deserve if their real object were not to gain
votes to secure the establishment of a Socialist form of government. It
is probable that before long, voting with true social reformers, they
will see the materialization of many of the immediate demands enumerated
in their platform. But it is to be remembered that no matter how many
beneficial reforms Socialists may help to procure under our present
constitutional system, they thus in no way prove the superiority of a
Socialistic government, democratic in form, in which the citizens would
collectively own and manage the principal means of production,
transportation, and communication. The reason is that our constitutional
government would still be in vogue, and the contradictory fundamental
principle of Socialism could not be applied by the ruling Marxians.
Persons who judge the Socialist movement solely by the immediate demands
of its political platform, or by social reforms instituted after a
political victory, understand very little either about Socialism or the
methods and purposes of the Marxians. Yet this was the short-sighted
manner in which the press persistently, and for a long time, viewed the
tactics of Socialist politicians. Only a revolutionary movement far
enough advanced to neglect gradual transformation by means of immediate
demands would be able to sweep away by force, at a single stroke, all
the old conditions of production, together with our present form of
government, and the existing order of society.
The so-called "Immediate Demands" of the Socialists may be termed
political campaign Socialism or vote-catching Socialism. They are the
sugar coating of the poisonous pill of Socialism itself. Their object is
to attract and interest the voter, and at the same time keep his mind
off of the fallacies of Socialism proper. They keep him from asking too
many unanswerable questions about the detailed method of organization
under a Socialist form of government--for instance, how the millions
upon millions of government employes would be assigned to positions that
would suit them, and at the same time receive satisfactory remuneration
for their labors.
These same immediate demands also give the voter a chance to find fault
with our present system of government and to criticise it, thereby
rendering it less able to withstand successive Socialist assaults. The
immediate demands are, of course, meant for the present day and even if
they should materialize, under our present system, they could not be
continued in a Socialist state, that would be necessarily weak,
poverty-stricken, strife-ridden, politically corrupt and chaotic. It is
one thing to make demands, quite another thing to be able to grant them.
A highway robber can demand a million dollars from the person whom he
attacks, but that doesn't make the one assaulted able to surrender the
sum; nor would it prove that the robber himself could afford to pay a
like amount if he should afterwards be held up for a million.
The immediate demands of the 1918 Congressional Platform of the
Socialist Party are entirely too many conveniently to enumerate. They
are classed under
A--International Reconstruction.
Peace Aims.
Federation of Peoples.
B--Internal Reconstruction.
Industrial Control.
Railroads and Express Service.
Steamships and Steamship Lines.
Telegraph and Telephone.
Large Power Scale Industry.
Democratic Management.
Demobilization.
The Structure of Government (i.e., of the present system of
government).
Civil Liberties.
Taxation.
Credit.
Agriculture.
Conservation of Natural Resources.
Labor Legislation.
Prisons.
The Negro.
The immediate demands are so numerous as to require a booklet of 24
pages, published by the National Office, Socialist Party, Chicago, Ill.
It is very hard to find a single reference to Socialism itself in the
entire 24 pages of the Congressional Platform.
In a letter of Moses Oppenheimer, published in "The Call," New York,
April 14, 1919, we are told that under the opportunist leadership of men
like Hillquit, Berger, Ghent, and Robert Hunter the struggle for reforms
has gradually overshadowed and supplanted the demand for the abolition
of wage slavery. The writer continues:
"More and more it has resulted in petty tactics for vote catching.
Berger's Old Age Pension bill was a glaring exhibit of opportunist
incapacity.
"Immediate demands are a tactical problem! Comrade Lee knows that
the tactics change with changed conditions. There was a time when
the opportunists expected to win the votes of the bulk of A. F. of
L. workers. Hence the sugar coating of the Socialist pill and three
years of Chester M. Wright in control of 'The Call.'
"That is now ancient history. Lee could not repeat that chapter if
he would. Nay, I believe he wouldn't if he could.
"The powerful impulse from the movement in Europe makes itself felt
over here. There is great need for reforming our front, for
recasting our tactics. The old roar of opportunism led us nowhere,
except to barren failure. If nothing else the experience with our
Ten in Albany and our Seven in the City Hall should open our eyes.
The time for picayune politics is irrevocably gone."
In an article published in "The Proletarian," Detroit, April, 1919, page
4, Oakley Johnson thus criticises the Socialist policy of reformism as
manifested in the immediate demands of the party platform:
"Socialists have been dazed time and again by the glitter of
reformism. In every country the question has been an ever-present
one, and, as a result, the rainbows of reform have found many
chasers in the ranks of the workers. The matter seemed, up to near
the end of the war, to involve more an academic dispute on tactics
than a principle of vital importance. There seemed too many good
reasons why immediate demands for slight concessions should not be
worked for, as a step in the direction of proletarian emancipation.
"When, however, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia showed the stand
taken by the reformist groups--a stand in defense of capitalism
when capitalism was about to fall--the uncompromisingly
revolutionary attitude of Marxian Socialists toward reform in the
past was amply justified. And when, in the course of a few months,
the reformistic Majority Socialists of Germany took exactly the
same stand as the Kerensky crowd had taken, there could no longer
be any doubt that the purpose of reform parties in capitalistic
society is to function as the last obstacle to the victory of the
proletariat....
"The fact is, there is a threefold objection to reformism as a
working-class policy. In the first place it is a waste of effort,
for the same zeal displayed by short-sighted reform-Socialists
would, if applied in the propagation of straight Socialism, treble
the strength of the movement in a few months' time. In the second
place reformism obscures the real end in view, develops
confusionists rather than revolutionists, gives capitalist
political parties a chance to steal a few 'Socialist' planks and
thus bid for the Socialist vote, and, worst of all, paves the way
to such tragedies as are now occurring in Germany, where Liebknecht
and Luxemberg have been murdered by their 'reform' comrades(?). And
finally, in the third place, even if reform be the sole object in
view, reformism is the poorest policy to follow to get it. A
proletariat organized for revolutionary ends has no difficulty in
securing reforms; it does not need to ask for them, for an awakened
and apprehensive bourgeoisie will shower reforms upon them like the
proverbial manna. If, indeed, workers want only reforms, why take
the longest way around?"
"The New Age," Buffalo, April 10, 1919, page 4, rejoices that the
reformists of the Socialist Party, whose policy it is to pay more
attention to the immediate demands than to the principles of Socialism,
have now a serious rival in the New Labor Party:
"Now that the New Labor Party is established (and in Chicago
recently they polled more votes than the Socialists), we wonder
what the old machine will do to combat this new octopus that
threatens the big vote that used to belong to 'US.' Answer: Teach
the working class real Socialism, the Socialism of Marx and
Engels."
The millionaire Socialist, William Bross Lloyd, of Chicago, has a very
interesting article on "Socialist Platforms" in "The Communist,"
Chicago, April 1, 1919:
"Confession is good for the soul. Let the Socialist Party of the
World now stand up and confess that it bears a close resemblance to
other political parties in that, like the others, its platforms are
mostly bunk.
"The difference between its platforms and others is that the others
mean nothing while its platforms mean anything. The difference
between Socialists and other politicians is that the Socialists
mean what they think their platforms mean while the others mean
only to get office.
"This follows from the state of affairs we have had in the world
since 1914, when Socialists became so diverse in words and deeds.
Most of those on both sides are honest. The trouble is the
vagueness of the words of the Socialist propaganda.
"Socialist thought should be so clearly stated in its platforms
that no one can doubt its meaning. This will eliminate from the
party the reformers and compromisers who are such a source of
weakness to the movement. It will also make clear to the workers
that the movement really means something.
"Take, for instance, the case of the party's attitude toward war.
Socialists are said to be opposed to all wars--then come the
exceptions: wars of 'defense,' 'invasion,' 'emancipation,'
'liberation,' and all the meaningless tribe. Confusion results. We
have the German Majority Socialists, i.e., so-called Socialists,
supporting their government in a war of 'defense' against
'invasion' and of the maintenance of their 'liberties'--God save
the mark--against Russian autocracy....
"Without knowing the precise intention of those who drafted the St.
Louis platform, I infer that it was partly written in the hope--if
not belief--that the American workers would rise against their
oppressors and the situation to which they have been subjected. It
was a ringing declaration--a 'mass movement' of the delegates to
the convention, later endorsed by the party membership. And as
these delegates separated hot-foot for home, they got cold feet as
they dispersed into the cold-footed isolation of the individual
Socialist scattered here and there throughout this land. The
platform contained no statement of individual duty, no individual
program of action Each Socialist began to ask as his feet got
colder and colder: 'Where are these "mass movements;" what are the
others going to do?' The situation was made worse by the action of
the National Executive Committee which told every Socialist to read
the St. Louis platform and then act as his conscience dictated.
Fine business for a revolutionary mass movement seeking to
establish the co-operative commonwealth. No anarchist could be more
individualistic.
"The party's attitude toward war should be cleared up. It should
definitely provide for mass action, and bind the individuals of the
party as units of the party mass. This war platform should be
followed by a Workers' Mobilization plan carefully worked out in
detail and laying down action in response to each step taken in
approach to war. For instance, on the introduction of the War
Declaration in Congress, a one-day general strike just to show the
rulers what was in store. On passage of the War Declaration a
general strike, refusal to serve in the military forces, and such
other measures as may be effective."
"The Appeal to Reason" some years ago was the leading Socialist paper of
the United States. In 1917 it came out in favor of war with the Central
Powers. Either because of this, or because it violently assailed
Bolshevism for a long while, it is now outlawed by the greater part of
the Socialist Party.
On the editorial page of "The Call," New York, April 24, 1919, we read:
"Instead of the 'Appeal to Reason' asking for a pardon for Debs, it
should ask a pardon from Debs."
In "The Bulletin," Chicago, March 24, 1919, there appears on page 12 a
bitter attack on "The Appeal" by no less a personage than Adolph Germer,
National Secretary of the Socialist Party. In this official paper,
issued by the National Office, Socialist Party, we read:
"An Open Letter to 'The Appeal.'
"_March_ 19, 1919.
"Editor Appeal to Reason,
"Girard, Kans.:
"Sir.--In the issue of the 'Appeal to Reason,' March 15, 1919, you
publish an appeal for $30,000 CASH, for an alleged 'Amnesty and
Construction Fight.'
"You give yourself credit for having 'won' the first skirmish in
the amnesty fight and on the basis of this unfounded claim, you
justify your appeal for $30,000 CASH. To make your appeal seem
legitimate, you use such names as Eugene V. Debs, Kate Richards
O'Hare, Rose Pastor Stokes and refer to 'many of our comrades.' I
happen to be one of those who is facing a prison sentence and if
you have included me in 'many of the comrades,' I want you to
strike my name from your list. I loathe to be a 'comrade' of yours.
You and your paper helped to create a hatred against the Socialist
Party and you wilfully and maliciously lied about the National
Executive Committee when it refused to follow a course that would
put more of our members in prison. In other words, you and your
paper must bear a part of the responsibility for the prosecution
and persecution of the Socialists and it is rank hypocrisy for you
to prate about your fight for amnesty.
"Others may speak for themselves, but I scorn any effort that you
make in my behalf. A thousand times would I rather spend the rest
of my life behind prison bars than to have one word from you whom I
hold responsible for the persecutions of which my colleagues and I
are victims.
"I look upon your appeal for $30,000 CASH, in the name of
'Amnesty,' as a sinister method of filling your own coffers.
"You have lied to us and about us and betrayed us in the past and I
resent your hypocritical prattle about amnesty.
"Yours without respect,
"Adolph Germer,
"_National Secretary, Socialist Party_."
Judging from the bitter attacks that Socialists are making upon each
other, it would seem that there might be a little harmony in the party
if their platforms were limited to the principles of Socialism and were
not concerned with "immediate demands" to the almost total exclusion of
Socialism itself.